WotC is basically saying that they can yank the rug out from under you any time they want with this license. Is that how it reads to everyone else?

I don't think I would publish under this license if I was in this industry, professionally speaking.

Not only can they yank the rug out from individuals, but from everyone at once without prior notice.

Spoiler:

11.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees.

This may be my favorite part of the license, mainly because it involves writing new code. :-) If you use the GSL and want to ensure that you're adequately protecting your company's interests, you need to make a bot that scrapes the http://www.wizards.com/d20 page just before you accept any order for a GSL-licensed product.

Hey Gary, does this conflict with the site wizards.com Terms of Use? I'm looking specifically at the first paragraph and everything under 3.Limits on Use of the Site.

I apologize if this comes off as rude. Yes, it is a significant amount of work, but the actual amount is closely linked to how many corrections (as well as the scope of those corrections) are allowed after proofs/galleys. The typesetting system used to page the content is also a very important factor. If we are talking quark, indesign, (gods forbid) LaTeX etc yeah, major pain.

In some cases, repaginating an article to correct a problem with figure resolution can take as few as 3 minutes. Monkeying around with tables, especially landscape tables, that span multiple columns, can quickly become a two or three day project.

There are template driven systems that can reduce this workload, but most are probably not appropriate for most fantasy rpg content, as these systems require some pretty heavy concessions on style (always calling out your figures/art, not caring about re-flow of text between pages, limited box art, list goes on.)

One of us is misunderstanding the artwork clause. I'm seeing "Don't make your jawa look *too much* like our jawa."

"Licensee expressly acknowledges Wizards’ ownership of all imagery and artwork contained in 4E, and Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."

To me that sounds like a basic right of review of *anything* that resembles something out of the SRD. If you're going to use our artwork, you need our written permission. (that's pretty normal). But also if you're going to make something called a "goblin" and make images of it that even somewhat resembles ours, you need our written permission.

So if you're going to make your Jawa even vaguely resemble our Jawa, you need our ok to do so.

Now, whether that written permission is necessary for each piece of artwork or if someone large like Paizo et al can get some sort of blanket written ok, that's probably something you'd have to determine. Intent of use, reputation, and past history would factor in I'm sure.

What's REALLY awesome about the GSL is this; it looks to me (IANAL) like you could publish a product under the GSL, and WotC could just take it and republish it, and you would have no rights to claim ownership of your own product.

So if you're going to make your Jawa even vaguely resemble our Jawa, you need our ok to do so.

So, um . . . you can't print stat blocks unless they are wholly original monsters, and you can't put any pictures that might generally look like WOTC's art . . . there going to be a lot of boring looking books out there if anyone adopts this thing.

I've been waiting to see which way Necromancer goes w/ the GSL. Not b/c I want to see them do 4th edition stuff, but b/c I'm still holding out hope for a 3.5 version of Greg Vaughan's Slumbering Tsar trilogy. Though if Clark does continue w/ his plans for going 4th, I guess that hope is misplaced now...sniff.

This scenario is slightly different from my perspective, since the licensing is one of my primary concerns when purchasing a product (I’m guessing I’m in a discrete minority), but, let’s put this into context: Is the Fourth Edition rule set good enough that gamers will flock to it, forcing publishers to adopt the GSL or stagnate?

Now that we’ve seen the rules and the licensing, are they worth the hassle of even bothering to use 4E? Why not pretend it doesn’t exist, like the first Hulk movie?

WotC's lawyers did a pretty good job covering the company's butt and keeping the lid on Pandora's Box, while letting some of what's within trickle free - controlled, or at least with the semblance of control. (Policing this license is going to be a bear. I suspect that WotC won't be overly aggressive. Instead, the GSL covers their arse should they seek enforcement.)

My sense is further solified that WotC perceives that its brand name is strong enough to draw third party publishers in who want a piece of WotC's pie . . . no matter how limited that piece is.

And I also assume the restriction on 4e core monster entries is to keep a lid on slight variations to core creatures (as is the restriction on variances alone). (Not sure just yet how this will work for monsters with class ranks.) Still, this wouldn't stop someone with creative genius like Paizo's to come up with their own monsters (and classes).

I also suspect the hoops and hurdles will keep people from moving in too much into the module adventure grounds that WotC is staking out . . . having learned from 3e that it is a money maker. (Hence, the cancellation of Paizo's Dungeon (and Dragon) license were foreshadowing.)

That all said, I am really glad that Paizo didn't jump on the bandwagon. I agree with Paizo that 3.5 remains a good medium for roleplaying. (And the OGL for 3.5 is a lot more 3rd party friendly.)

It remains to be seen whether WotC's plan proves to be a chokehold or conducive to growth. But it also remains to be seen whether Paizo's strategy will hold profit in the 4e years to come. (Hope so.) Of course, if Paizo should decide to change gears at some point in the future, it will continue to have an avenue.

But did I hear Baur right that he's leaning to staying with 3.5e? It may have been an inference, a hint, a suggestion, or the hours of hard labor speaking. Or I'm simply reading into this as I want.

Quite the opposite. My take on this, is that WotC are going to define the brand very clearly.

Like all business decisions, this one has some serious downsides. They do not want to share the D&D brand, except on very clear terms. They spend millions of dollars on developing the brand. Why should they share it with anyone?

The d20 license, the OGL and the release of the SRD are great for the fans, and the players, and the hobby, and the third party publishers, but have they been good to the owners of the game?

They are sharpening their knives at WotC. Eying the golden calf of WoW with narrowed eyes.

more than six million people play WoW. They pay ten dollars or more a month. That is sixty million dollars a month. Of course WotC wants to cut into that market. It is the new frontier. The Dungeons and Dragons brand has a paper legacy, but it is obvious that it will have a digital future.

The abyssal movies were a poor attempt at monetising the brand. I expect that WotC may be looking to reboot the movie franchise, in much the same way that Marvel and DC have done. Within a year or so, they may make a move into Hollywood or television.

An MMO is clearly a strategy for the future.

The GSL is a very generous offer, if one looks at this from a business perspective. Try to write a Starcraft comic, and see what Blizzard does.

One of us is misunderstanding the artwork clause. I'm seeing "Don't make your jawa look *too much* like our jawa."

"Licensee expressly acknowledges Wizards’ ownership of all imagery and artwork contained in 4E, and Licensee expressly agrees it will not use, publish or reprint any such imagery or artwork, including without limitation any derivatives thereof, without Wizards’ written permission."

To me that sounds like a basic right of review of *anything* that resembles something out of the SRD. If you're going to use our artwork, you need our written permission. (that's pretty normal). But also if you're going to make something called a "goblin" and make images of it that even somewhat resembles ours, you need our written permission.

So if you're going to make your Jawa even vaguely resemble our Jawa, you need our ok to do so.

Now, whether that written permission is necessary for each piece of artwork or if someone large like Paizo et al can get some sort of blanket written ok, that's probably something you'd have to determine. Intent of use, reputation, and past history would factor in I'm sure.

Ah. I see what you're seeing now. Yeah, you're approaching it from the "I can only do this if i seek specific permission angle"—which I don't think is what they intended, because I *know* they don't want to be in the position of reviewing all artwork—or anything else—published under license, and because there's not actually any real provision elsewhere in the license for doing so. I was approaching it from the "what can we do without explicit permission" point of view.

Wow, that is one of the few very very long threads I read through all the posts. All of which were very civil. I am happy to be a loyal Paizo customer. I am even thinking of upgrading to add Pathfinder Chronicles Subscriber to my title now after a read of the GSL

I ordered the 4e Core Books from Amazon about June 3 when the price got too low to ignore (they claimed they would arrive by now, but I seriously suspected that might not be the case). However, their delay has given me a chance to rethink. I might let them come anyway since there are apparently some good ideas and I have been stealing from Judges Guild, Arduin and anyone else I can find for nearly 3 decades now.

BTW, do I see that the largest item in the GSL downloads is the full color logo? I also was happy to see Vic, Erik and Sebastian enthusiastically posting to this thread.

Like all business decisions, this one has some serious downsides. They do not want to share the D&D brand, except on very clear terms. They spend millions of dollars on developing the brand. Why should they share it with anyone?

The d20 license, the OGL and the release of the SRD are great for the fans, and the players, and the hobby, and the third party publishers, but have they been good to the owners of the game?

They are sharpening their knives at WotC. Eying the golden calf of WoW with narrowed eyes.

more than six million people play WoW. They pay ten dollars or more a month. That is sixty million dollars a month. Of course WotC wants to cut into that market. It is the new frontier. The Dungeons and Dragons brand has a paper legacy, but it is obvious that it will have a digital future.

The abyssal movies were a poor attempt at monetising the brand. I expect that WotC may be looking to reboot the movie franchise, in much the same way that Marvel and DC have done. Within a year or so, they may make a move into Hollywood or television.

An MMO is clearly a strategy for the future.

The GSL is a very generous offer, if one looks at this from a business perspective. Try to write a Starcraft comic, and see what Blizzard does.

Is the Fourth Edition rule set good enough that gamers will flock to it, forcing publishers to adopt the GSL or stagnate?

One former Wizards employee whom I won't name (and this person is not a Paizo employee, either) raised the theory that the reason Wizards waited until now to release the GSL is that they were waiting to see how well 4E sold. Specifically, to perhaps give themselves a chance to answer the question "do we really need third party publishers?"

Is the Fourth Edition rule set good enough that gamers will flock to it, forcing publishers to adopt the GSL or stagnate?

One former Wizards employee whom I won't name (and this person is not a Paizo employee, either) raised the theory that the reason Wizards waited until now to release the GSL is that they were waiting to see how well 4E sold. Specifically, to perhaps give themselves a chance to answer the question "do we really need third party publishers?"

I gather they've sold a lot of books...

It may also be that they delayed because they knew if they released the GSL earlier, it would severely damage initial sales. I certainly would not have bought the set (even out of curiosity) if I had seen the GSL first.

It may also be that they delayed because they knew if they released the GSL earlier, it would severely damage initial sales. I certainly would not have bought the set (even out of curiosity) if I had seen the GSL first.

Which brings up an unanswered question - who leaked official .pdfs of the core series in the first place. Anyone find out?

I think someone on these boards suggested that it was a way to drum up support prior to release. (I certainly haven't heard any admissions from WotC on this.)

The d20 license, the OGL and the release of the SRD are great for the fans, and the players, and the hobby, and the third party publishers, but have they been good to the owners of the game?

Good point. I think the GSL is the perfect middle finger from Hasbro to everyone in this hobby that feels a sense of entitlement to the Dungeons and Dragons pie. It is their pie now; they paid for it and they're going to eat it.

Throwing more fuel on the implications bonfire. The license intent is that you don't redefine any of the licensed terms. So what is a Demon defined as? If you look at page 52 you will see there are a couple of paragraph before any Demon entries that explain what Demons are.

So does this means that if you write about Demons for a 4th edition product it has to be under that SPECIFIC cosmology? If you are say writing a old testament or babylonian product that you can't call their evil supernatural beings Demons because those two cultures have a different definition (but similar) for Demons. The same for Devils? You can't even EXPLAIN the default cosmology because that would result in a violation of the prohibition of copying any text.

Like the OGL the reality will come out in the months to come as Wizards and the 3rd party publishers interact. It could be that Wizards wants keep up all in lock step with the marketing of fourth edition default world and all. It could be Wizards doesn't really care as long as publishers limit themselves to expansions, settings and modules and not try to recreate the rulebook.

Well, I was considering self-publishing pdf adventures online, but this license kind of put a stick in the clogs.

What burns most is that if I were to create a brilliant adventure (a big IF, I know), if they revoked my privilege of using the license, I'd be out of luck, couldn't use my own adventure, the IP I personally own, anywhere.

Yuck.

I'm not convinced this is the best move for Wizards. There's a reason why VHS became a hit and Beta did not. Cause everyone could use VHS! D&D, of course, is a big brand, but I still think it would behoove Wizards to allow small and large publishers alike enough leeway to support the system in a way that makes business sense.

Been reading folks' posts on and off all night, and don't have much to add about the GSL itself (beyond what's already been said quite eloquently). All I can say is- I'm glad I've got Paizo to turn to for my gaming fix. :)

Well, I was considering self-publishing pdf adventures online, but this license kind of put a stick in the clogs.

What burns most is that if I were to create a brilliant adventure (a big IF, I know), if they revoked my privilege of using the license, I'd be out of luck, couldn't use my own adventure, the IP I personally own, anywhere.

Yuck.

I challenge you to write a 3.5 or PRPG adventure then. Via an immortal quote from Spaceballs "What's wrong Colonel Sanders, chicken?"

That seems to me the best way to go. the 3.0/3.5 OGL can not be really be dismantled now.

I am beginning to suspect that Hasbro is putting pressure on Wizards of the Coast to get Dungeons & Dragons to sell more lucratively, and Wizards figured that the best way to do this is through the DDI.

I don't think Wizards of the Coast is trying to draw people away from World of Warcraft - there is little hope of that happening - but is trying to capitalize on some of the Blizzard's most lucrative strategies, such as subscription-based content. The vast majority of revenue from Warcraft comes from the subscription. Wizards is taking to same route with the DDI; I have heard, for example, that Wizards is going to produce only a campaign setting book and a player's guide for Eberron and the Forgotten Realms, and further material will be released exclusively through the DDI, which will encourage gamers to subscribe to the service.

While this is an ingenious money-making strategy, I can't help but feel that it betrays the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons. More importantly, the GSL has shown me that such a strategy can easily backfire.

If fans want to create their own monsters/adventures/prestige classes/whatever and post it on the web (but not on Gleemax, as anything posted on those forums is the IP of Wizards), I imagine that Wizards of the Coast would quickly slap them with a "cease and desist" order in an effort to "protect" the DDI from competition. Talk about alienating your fan base! Lorraine Williams would be proud.

Which brings up an unanswered question - who leaked official .pdfs of the core series in the first place. Anyone find out? I think someone on these boards suggested that it was a way to drum up support prior to release. (I certainly haven't heard any admissions from WotC on this.)

I don't think they'll ever admit it. But this is my theory. It was to drum up support/interest in 4e. It costs them nothing, and if you look at the 3 books, there's no code, nothing for you to plug into DDI when it goes live. So how do you prove to them you own the core books without a code or something? You can't.

So they give it away now, they give it away when DDI goes live. And from that point on, all your digital books will have a link to your hardcopy books.

RE: The leaked .pdf’s: I don’t have them, but I’ve certainly seen them. They are publisher’s copies: Bleed marks, Pantone, no cover art. I can’t imagine WoTC would ever, ever use that particular printer again without sincere apologies or monetary damages if they weren’t intentionally leaked.

For myself, I'm actually feeling distinct sorrow and pity for the R&D team and the designers themselves.

I suspect part of the reason for the delay is because they threw a massive internal hissy-fit over these terms, and what those terms would do to both their pool of potnetial future hirable talent, and to people they consider friends and collegues in the industry.

It's almost a certain thing that much of the source of this document probably comes from the dark corporate masters at Hasbro, with possibly some input from WoTC's management.

The sense I get from the people who actually MADE the game is that they were designing something they thought people would like, would enjoy, and want to play. Frankly, I can't imagine doing a design job where that WASN'T how you approached it. For all the problems people have with the 4th edition, it's clear to me at least that for the actual writers and developers it was a labor of love.

And it's very arguable that this GSL is going to damage what they were trying to do, as well as possibly strain some very old friendships and business relationships.

I'm having lunch with a designer at WotC tomorrow, and next week I join his 4e campaign, which is (I think) exclusively populated by WotC R&D folks, including at least one with a cover credit on the core rules.

Sometimes I am sure that the business decisions of one company puzzles the other, but on a personal level you try not to focus on that stuff.

There was some weird secretiveness about the new edition (and of course with our own plans for Pathfinder), but now that all of that is out of the way conversations are a bit less awkward.

I am just looking forward to getting the rules (lunch is the scene of the handoff, as it were) and checking out the new game.

I have been so focused on the business and the strategy of dealing with the new edition and the GSL and the Pathfinder RPG that I haven't had enough time to focus on the game as a GAME and play it to have fun.

I'm really looking forward to that.

--Erik

(Still totally unimpressed with what they did to alignment, cosmology, parceling out core content over years of hardbacks, gnomes uber alles, & etc.)

I have been so focused on the business and the strategy of dealing with the new edition and the GSL and the Pathfinder RPG that I haven't had enough time to focus on the game as a GAME and play it to have fun.

I'm really looking forward to that.

--Erik

(Still totally unimpressed with what they did to alignment, cosmology, parceling out core content over years of hardbacks, gnomes uber alles, & etc.)

I'm having lunch with a designer at WotC tomorrow, and next week I join his 4e campaign, which is (I think) exclusively populated by WotC R&D folks, including at least one with a cover credit on the core rules.

I can't tell you how upsetting this is. There is no way you should have enough free time to join a campaign.

Ah. I see what you're seeing now. Yeah, you're approaching it from the "I can only do this if i seek specific permission angle"—which I don't think is what they intended, because I *know* they don't want to be in the position of reviewing all artwork—or anything else—published under license, and because there's not actually any real provision elsewhere in the license for doing so. I was approaching it from the "what can we do without explicit permission" point of view.

Either way, it's not a good clause.

But wait, there's more!

You cannot redefine or alter the definition of any reference.
Since, for example, "goblin" is a defined term, does that term include the visual representation? There is some text describing them physically.
So in fact, drawing a goblin that does not match that description would "alter" the definition of a goblin, and thus any artwork would need to be vetted to make sure it is in accord with the definition.

Magazines are not disallowed. However, a licensed product may not "be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation)." So, no mixing OGL and 4E content under the same cover.

That was it!

We were discussing the status of converted products in the chat room, and both Jason and I had the same question:
What happens if someone updates their OGL product to a GSL product? Can someone else use the old OGL version in their OGL product?

And that clause, the combined product bit, was what I could not remember to express why I thought it would be impossible.
Does converting a product somehow "convert" even the OGL version, and thus lockout anyone from using it under the OGL?
If so, how would they possibly enforce it?